End of life planning in regards to a patient deciding, with their doctor, is, of course a common occurence. End of life planning decided by a "panel" of people who will decide what procedures you qualify for is a whole other story to me. I want my medical decisions to be between me and my doctor, not a panel of people and a "commissioner."

Originally Posted by Rheanna

If you're interested in an analysis of the facts involved in the conflict about end of life planning coverage, you can read it here.

Rather than say "this is what the Dems read" or "this is what the Reps read" and then shrug your shoulders and give up, I would think it would be more helpful to get the facts and make your own judgment.

Rheanna, you always say you don't belong to either party, and that you don't really have faith in either side.

So why does all the language you use to make your point ["death panels" being an example] come straight out of the Republican talking points?

End of life planning in regards to a patient deciding, with their doctor, is, of course a common occurence. End of life planning decided by a "panel" of people who will decide what procedures you qualify for is a whole other story to me. I want my medical decisions to be between me and my doctor, not a panel of people and a "commissioner."

Originally Posted by Rheanna

If you're interested in an analysis of the facts involved in the conflict about end of life planning coverage, you can read it here.

Rather than say "this is what the Dems read" or "this is what the Reps read" and then shrug your shoulders and give up, I would think it would be more helpful to get the facts and make your own judgment.

Rheanna, you always say you don't belong to either party, and that you don't really have faith in either side.

So why does all the language you use to make your point ["death panels" being an example] come straight out of the Republican talking points?

Originally Posted by wild~hair

I will check those links out, but I read the ACTUAL BILL. It clearly said that a panel of people would be assigned, along with the commissioner, to discuss the options for those with chronic illness or advanced age and decide what was feasible for those individuals' care. I didn't read what anyone said the bill said; I read the bill.

I never said I didn't associate at all with either party; I said I didn't feel like I fit in entirely with either, and do fit in more with the Libertarian way of thinking. Either way, I think the fact that I am conservative in most ways has been made very clear for anyone to see. As far as "death panels" go, I wasn't necessarily using a "Republican talking point" so much as the language that has been used, now on both sides, thinks to Palin (?) who first brought up the term, to argue whether or not panels existed who would make end-of-life decisions for you.

According to the Democrats who have read the bill, he's not a liar. According to the Republicans who have read the bill, he is. Truth is, has ANYone read the entire bill? I doubt it. I've read parts of it because a coworker had to write a term paper on it for school. I didn't see anything about covering minorities in it, but the death panels were clearly there. Page 425 I believe. Are they called death panels? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Rheanna

Alright, I believe that I argued that illegal immigrants should be covered. This is the best way to contain costs and ensure that American workers maintain a competitive edge. Sorry if you don't like it, but this is cold, hard economics, not petty politics.

And as much as Republicans "say" Obama is a liar, he isn't. It's funny that you're lecturing me for not reading the entire bill when you clearly haven't looked at Sec. 246 yourself. Despite your clear commitment to your civic duties, I'll do the work for you: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

I will check those links out, but I read the ACTUAL BILL. It clearly said that a panel of people would be assigned, along with the commissioner, to discuss the options for those with chronic illness or advanced age and decide what was feasible for those individuals' care. I didn't read what anyone said the bill said; I read the bill.

Originally Posted by Rheanna

Stop saying you read "the actual bill" like that puts you in a better position to judge. H.R. 3200 is 1000 pages long, and I find it hard to believe you flipped through all of it. You probably just read choice parts, like most of us have.

I read "the actual bill," too. I didn't see anything in there about somebody making end-of-life decisions for me. I saw that I had the option to consult with professionals about possible end-of-life care. I saw that Medicare would pay (read: NOT MANDATE) for this once every five years if I chose to take advantage of that benefit. If the government won't even mandate a consultation, how exactly do they plan to send me to my deathbed?

So much for reading the "actual bill." Nothing bothers me more than willful ignorance.

Rather than say "this is what the Dems read" or "this is what the Reps read" and then shrug your shoulders and give up, I would think it would be more helpful to get the facts and make your own judgment.

Rheanna, you always say you don't belong to either party, and that you don't really have faith in either side.

So why does all the language you use to make your point ["death panels" being an example] come straight out of the Republican talking points?

Originally Posted by wild~hair

I will check those links out, but I read the ACTUAL BILL. It clearly said that a panel of people would be assigned, along with the commissioner, to discuss the options for those with chronic illness or advanced age and decide what was feasible for those individuals' care. I didn't read what anyone said the bill said; I read the bill.

I never said I didn't associate at all with either party; I said I didn't feel like I fit in entirely with either, and do fit in more with the Libertarian way of thinking. Either way, I think the fact that I am conservative in most ways has been made very clear for anyone to see. As far as "death panels" go, I wasn't necessarily using a "Republican talking point" so much as the language that has been used, now on both sides, thinks to Palin (?) who first brought up the term, to argue whether or not panels existed who would make end-of-life decisions for you.

Originally Posted by Rheanna

Thank you for checking those links out. The bill language is difficult to slog through, I realize. I think the analysis at those links is helpful.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your comments earlier — I realize now you were talking about two different interpretations of the bill around the issue of undocumented immigrants. In rereading your comment, I see that the end-of-life planning portion of the bill was a separate matter for you.

As to anyone on the Dem side using the phrase "death panels," I'm guessing that would be the Blue Dog Dems. They are very likely in the pocket of the insurance companies.

I am a moderate, through and through. It's one of the reasons I supported Obama, because he is too. A lot people don't realize this about him, but if anyone looks at his actual policies and positions, he really is.

The Blue Dogs are moderate as well, and I like some of the things they stand for, especially fiscal responsibility. But I don't hold them in high regard when they are cowing to the insurers.

On the illegal immigrants issue, it is my understanding, that perhaps the conservative objection to the House bill when it comes to undocumented immigrants is that there aren't adequate checks in place make sure they aren't getting health care coverage. Having read the excerpts in question, I agree that's a problem.

What irks me is this taking that rather minor issue — which could be easily fixed by reworking the bill language — and instead making it into a huge issue by blowing it out of proportion and saying, "The president is lying when he says the bill doesn't cover illegal immigrants."

It's a red herring, hyperbole, and doesn't advance the debate. It's a waste of our precious time, further divides us when we can least afford it.

In short, it disgusts me.

I realize both sides play this game. It's politics. But I can still say it: it disgusts me.

***

One of the things I've learned in this process is that some people in this country are deathly afraid of their government. They are also in denial about their own mortality. This, combined, has made discussion of end-of-life planning in a government sponsored health plan impossible. And yet it would be required if such a plan were to compete with the private plans.

In other countries where national health plans exist, they have a more realistic approach to death and dying. They also don't fear their government, their government fears them.

Why are so many here so fearful of their government? After all, we get a chance to vote them out at regular intervals.

That was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer: they are fearful because some of the leadership stokes that fear in them. Fear keeps people down. Then that leadership can engage in self-preservation rather than lead; in this case, that involves keep the private health insurers happy and get some nice fat campaign contribution checks in return.

Y'know, Trenell, I'm in agreement with you. It made me cringe when he said "neanderthals."

But I can't help but wonder: maybe that kind of stuff is necessary to get people to sit up and take notice of what he's saying? To counteract "death panels" and Obama as Hitler? Unfortunately, being polite and debating completely rationally and logically doesn't seem to get anyone anywhere anymore.

That said, I'm not sure this is any better. I'm just glad it's different, that it seems like something that could shift the debate. I'll be watching with interest.